Hi Mike
Sorry ... here's a better link ...
Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Plan Action Agenda Just a little light reading
The FCC has issued numbers of PN's (public notices) and NPRM's (notice of proposed rule making) directly to this issue. It is likely that the initiative will not look like the proposal upon completion but unlikely that it won't bare strong resemblance.
True. I've heard the 120 MHz number as well, but more recently what I've heard is that it is highly unlikely that the Commission will involuntarily reclaim spectrum from TV broadcasters. They may, however, do some repacking. If it were me, I would be looking really closely at the 614-698 spectrum (84 MHz total). For land mobile use (public
safety, mobile broadband,
etc), this is the best spectrum primarily for frequency reuse and for antenna size considerations. This is why I suggest that anyone buying new wireless mics in the
UHF band stick to stuff between 470 and 608 MHz. It's completely a gut feeling, but it's based on what I've heard in a number of different circles.
I can also tell you that Chmn. Genachowski has publicly committed to maintaining TV white space in some form. I was in the room when he said it.
The plan is not to take down the whole TV band but to take away a little over half of it for broadband infrastructure, consumer and public
safety use.
Your "you'll be fine for a number of years" just depends on how many years that actually turns out to be. Just this week Microsoft announced testing of super wi-fi/whitespace devices in Cambridge England. Yes, that's not in the USA. but you know it will filter back.
I've also got a license to test white space devices in the TV Bands in Blacksburg, VA.
WF2XPA
But, I don't disagree with you that parts of the TV band are going to be going away. The free ride ended a few years ago. The problem is that nobody has stepped up with a good solution to the problem in the audio industry. Those still in
UHF are throwing software and blinky lights at the problem, and hoping nobody notices. Sure,
dynamic spectrum access is cool and all, but it's not a real solution to the problem.
Here's my issue with 900 MHz (902-928, NOT the 944-952 band): It's got too much stuff in it, and it's not predictable. Unless you're walking around with a spectrum analyzer, there's no way to know what's going to interfere with you. Off the top of my head, radiolocation, traffic light systems,
amateur radio operators, baby monitors, cordless phones, wireless TV senders, and a bunch of other Part 15 devices operate on either a licensed or unlicensed basis (not to mention the true ISM users of the band--heating and so forth). A quick search of the FCC's Database for licenses in this band in a 25-mile radius of Blacksburg, VA turned up 14 licenses (all for location/positioning).
2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz is less predictable due to people's computers running Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Heck, half of the
cell phones sold today have Wi-Fi radios in them and 90% probably have bluetooth.
So the bottom
line is, for a mission critical
system you need a band with some
level of predictability. TV offers this (or, it will until the White Space Devices hit the market). I still think High Band
VHF is the BEST place for wireless mics. I know the antennas will be large but at least the spectrum will be
clear.
Just to be completely above board, I do work for a company that manufacturers a 2.4 GHz digital alternative, so I do have a dog in the fight and readers should take that into account. I'm merely pointing out that anyone considering purchasing new wireless systems better do their homework and determine their
level of comfort with
return on investment. I'm just inviting them to explore.
Which is something I encourage everyone to do if they're going to
drop thousands of dollars on a wireless audio
system.